Hi Anthony,
“””””””” brian thought that density difference was crazy. to me, it's not that surprising. density accuracy is going to depend on the weight and volume accuracy. so a combined diff of 10% doesn't seem that bad to me.””””””

Thats good perspective also. It was kindof how we had been doing it in the past. Understanding there are variables, but we could get it close.

When .2 ounces became sortof large to explain, i had to dig in deeper to gain more understanding.

So just for your information, here is how “the numbers” come about.

My brother has to make a lead mold. They are “canoe leads” that go on throw nets here in Hawaii. (The guys like to be very particular about the weight being “exact”!


Using the volume of the cad model given to us from our CAM software (and now MoI also) we scale the model to meet desired shape and dims to produce a volume that when plugged into a conversion calculator (the aqua one being mentioned is just one of thousands online) we can generate a model that “should” be x ounces when we cut a closed mold on the cnc.

Previously got him setup by doing some trial and error cuts and going back and forth on volume till he got “x ounces” from a pour. Then i told him, your lead is different by this much, so compensate. But that “compensation grew and grew because it was incorrect for future calcs.

The lead is sourced by diving in fishing spots and picking lost leads, then melting it down, scraping out coral and rubbish, and pouring the mold.

If “7 ounces” was the goal, we could get leads out at 7.02 ounces and just explain “results may vary”

.2 ounces was too much. I have to help him track down what is not right (yesterday)

You have directed me towards the density part, which had me understand better what i am looking at (and also understand how the number could have gotten so far off from what was expected (different density partially, but in combination with bad procedure of “scaling models” too, doubles the error then 2 and a half years later “nothing is right” lol….

I am reworking what will be done from scratch, with less variable from the proper “density”.

Anyway, long winded. But suffice it to say, you helped me a great deal on this. Thanks again.